Illegal youths may get driver’s licenses

August 16, 2012

California and Arizona are the first two states to decide if youthful illegal immigrants should be able to acquire driver’s licenses when the Obama administration grants their work permits. Arizona said no, California, yes. (San Jose Mercury News)

The California Department of Motor Vehicles announced Wednesday it will make licenses available to the estimated 400,000 individuals who would be eligible under new federal rules, which allow each state to makes its own determination on the matter.

Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer sign an order Wednesday prohibiting her state’s issuance of licenses to anyone who falls under the new federal mandate.

A state assemblyman, Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) said he believes most Californians oppose such action and hopes this will ignite “a huge debate on the issue.” Current state law prohibits illegals from getting licenses, but once approved by the Department of Homeland Security, they will be classified as “temporary legal residents.”

As many of you know, there is a push for registered voters be required to show a valid government ID, if this went thru if would completely undermine that effort allowing 400K illegal voters flooding our polls. The voting process is questionable enough with controversial organizations charged with increasing voter registration numbers. 400k in our state alone and who knows how many country wide…potential for significant voter fraud.

Not at all! The rest of the (sane) country would simply no longer accept California (or Arizona) drivers licenses as valid ID.

Simple.

How this is a STATES RIGHTS issue (“under new federal rules”) is beyond me, unless we all now have to get a Federal Drivers License to drive outside our state… maybe that is next. I mean, why have a State DMV when you can have a State DMV + a Fed DMV, too! Yay! More government, more fees! Yay!

If the feds had done their job for the last 30 years, we would not even be having this discussion…
And IMHO, tis is going to come down to states rights issue over the feds, just because of what I just said, it costs the states too much money to care for and regulate ILLEGALS which should have been done by the feds long ago…

Yes, so long ago that we may safely conclude at this point that the feds have no intention whatsoever of stopping illegal aliens from getting into our state, onto our lands, AND into our pocket books. Clearly, this trend is ominous and NOT sustainable.

IMHO, two reasons: economic and political.
Cheap labor and votes…
Once upon a time we had the bracero program, which worked well for decades, then the ACLU and unions got involved. Today the illegal labor is wide spread and not just limited to the AG fields, but the same reason for to exist is still there, cheap labor, labor to affraid to complain or speak up agianst employers.
Then there is the vote, this election cycle is being ripped apart and dragged into the gutter by both parties. And it is very obvious that there is a movement afoot to allow non legal citizens, those without any ID what so ever and even felony criminals get the vote and gain entitlement benefits, which in the past was never given to the above groups. Pandering plain and simple…

So, Kettle, what your saying is…there IS voter fraud. And what is your source, sounds like you pulled these numbers out of your …. bias thoughts. How does Jimmy O’Keefe say there is voter fraud and claim he hasn’t found any? How did your boy come to these conclusions. Perhaps you need to do a little more research before quoting numbers that don’t pass the laugh test , and make you look, well…. you get it. Try pop up books next time with the pretty colorful pictures, I’m pretty sure O’Keef has some out you can relate to. Check the Fiction section (that means “not true” )

I presume you are prepared to provide your insurance license to back up your statement?

Insurance follows the vehicle FIRST … (here is the part you left out)….and the driver 2nd. A driver IS absolutely responsible for the operation of the vehicle and, as a secondary provider of insurance, required to be able to provide financial responsibility for the vehicle they operate. If the car does not have coverage, the driver must. If the car does have insurance, the driver will be asked to reimburse the insurance company for all costs (subrogation). If the vehicle does not have coverage and the driver also does not have coverage, the driver isn’t released from responsibility BECAUSE the car did not drve itself!

I think you do not need an insurance license to get through this difficult question, Danika.

The original question was do you need insurance to get a drivers license…….seems I get renewed though the mail without providing insurance info. I do realize that the insurance is necesssary when registering an auto, but that’s not what this is about

Assume that I don’t own a car and live alone. I still can get a driver license. I realize the responsibility that you referred to and that’s fine, it’s always been that way.

BTW, do you have a plan for auto insurance where I have no car?
I would be interested in that.

Maybe they can have a PROFILE photo like some states do for under-21 people? Or put the photo on the opposite side… I actually don’t know what CA does now for under-21 (other than text), but there’s all kinds of things possible.

That’s nuthin” Obummer signed the ” You’ll ALWAYS have military superiority (our kids in uniforms lives) for any war you start” promise with Israel. Hey, what’s wrong with promising death and destruction for votes anyway? At this point it’s the new “M.O.”
So it’s either Obama crap like that (Israel dragging us into more wars) or Mitt, who’s 34 yr long friendship with Bebe Netenyahu, with whom Mitt stated he speaks in “shorthand” with because they think so similiarly. Which means (Israel dragging us into more wars).
See? democracy in the U.S. is about choice.

Heads up folks! The current amount of auto insurance required by CA law to drive a passenger vehicle is so low it would not pay for a compound fracture repair in many instances, much less serious injuries. With that in mind, my attorney advised me to get the maximum of uninsured motorist coverage. I did not know but that also covers ‘under insured motorist’. The old days of the person causing the accident insurance paying the claim are long gone because so many have the very minimal coverage. You need to protect yourself against many of the drivers out there. I now have maximum uninsured motorist coverage which is $500K and it does not cost mush per year. I am covered now for that amount if the other driver does not have what it takes to cover costs of vehicle repair and medical, etc..

The minimum amounts are non-negotiable; they are set for every driver in California regardless of the driver’s income status. The minimum auto insurance requirements for California are a 15/30/5 policy, otherwise known as:

Uninsured motorist coverage also includes UNDERinsured Motorists coverage. Please be aware that in order for UM or UIM claims to be settled, the responsible party causing the loss must be identified by their drivers license or vehicle license plate AND the insurance company can determine their uninsured status or their underinsured status. Don’t think your UM or UIM automatically kicks in…you need to get the info on the other party or the vehicle.

UM is indeed a valuable coverage. My office does not write any personal auto policy without it.

You brought up a good point. Even when you are 100% not at fault and your policy should pay without question, even when the driver and vehicle are identified, the insurance company does not want to pay without a lot of hassle. I had to get an attorney who was ready to sue the company and started the process until they paid. That’s what it took to get a high payout even though it was a 100% clear cut no gray areas situation. I leaned a lot about insurance companies during this period. They paid but it took almost 2 years! Even though many companies are aholes we still need their services in the world we find ourselves in.